LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
As has been mentioned in other threads, I have collected
the documents filed in court in the litigation between Kevin
Ryan and Underwriters Laboratories. There was an earlier
thread on this, at which time only Ryan's Complaint and UL's
Motion to Dismiss were posted since, at that time, Ryan had
not yet responded to UL's Motion to Dismiss.
Ryan has since filed a response to UL's motion, and UL has
filed its Reply to Ryan's Response, so this new thread is to
consolidate the documents and discussion in one place.
Many thanks to ~enigma~ for hosting the pdf documents
for your reading pleasure.
Enjoy
Ryan's initial complaint, which can be found here is not well
drafted and does not state very clearly the basis for the claims
it makes, but essentially it says that:
- in 2003, Ryan told people at UL about the usual tinhat conspiracy
theories;
- UL did not act upon his woo in the manner that Ryan wanted them to;
- so Ryan wrote to NIST to repeat the tinhat conspiracy theories,
and to accuse NIST of doing a crappy job in its investigation and
report, to accuse NIST of failing to "identify the truth about what
really happened", and suggesting that "criminal elements within the
U.S. government" may have planted explosives in the buildings, etc.;
- Ryan admits that he sent the letter from UL, using UL email address,
using his UL title, but says that he was stating his own opinion,
not UL's, and says that UL allowed him to use UL email for personal
email, and that the email program "automatically added the UL title
of Mr. Ryan to his email";
- Ryan also wrote to some tinhat troofer organization and they posted
his letter on the internet;
- UL fired Ryan as a result, saying that it was because he misrepresented
UL by writing as though it was UL's opinion and not his personal opinion;
- UL used this as a pretext to fire him "in retaliation for Mr. Ryan
exercising his rights and acting to fulfill his duties under the U.S.
constitution, the constitution of Indiana, and under federal and
state laws";
- UL wrongly terminated his employment because (by writing to NIST),
he exercised his right under the U.S constitution and the state
constitution to "petition his government for redress of grievances
and to reform his government", and because he was exercising his
first amendment rights in his letter to NIST and in his communications
with tinhat groups, etal.;
- UL wrongly terminated his employment because (by writing to NIST,
etc.), he was exercising his right to "report safety hazards and to
disclose material facts in a government investigatino of a (sic)
occupational and public safety related incident";
- UL wrongly terminated his employment because he was exercising
his right under federal, Indiana and NY laws, "to report potential
felonies and terrorist activity";
- UL wrongly terminated his employment because he was defending
the constitution and seeking to petition his government for redress
of grievances and seeking to "reform" the government "in the face
of actions by persons seeking to subvert" the gov't and alter the
democratic nature of our society;
Therefore, he seeks:
- back pay from November 2004
- $200,000 in front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement to his job;
- $unquantified for cost of relocation and job search;
- $unquantified lost value of medical insurance, retirement plan, benefits;
- $unquantified damages for emotional distress and damage to his reputation;
- $unquantified punitive damages.
UL brought a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, which can be found here.
UL's brief is self-explanatory and nicely set out, and essentially says that Ryan's
complaint discloses no viable claim and should, therefore, be dismissed.
In a nutshell, it says:
- that Ryan's complaint discloses no statutory basis for any of the
claims made by Ryan;
- that UL is not a government entity, (thus the first amendment and
related claims are not sustainable);
- that Ryan has not pleaded the requisite elements to make out any
of his claims;
- that UL was entitled to fire him for his sending the letter to NIST
containing many false or unsubstantiated assertions" and "baseless
assertions" and "incredible and unsupported claims" because he
misrepresented his opinions as that of the company;
- that Ryan was an "at will" employee; and
- that Ryan cannot, in the circumstances, bring his dismissal within
the narrow exception to "at will" termination, namely "public policy
exception."
As LossLeader noted in the original thread:
As noted above, Ryan has since filed a Response to UL's Motion to Dismiss,
which can be found here.
In a nutshell, it cuts and pastes liberally from Ryan’s initial Complaint,
does little to fix up the problems with the initial Complaint (despite the
UL motion materials being, virtually, a “how-to” manual for Ryan) and
goes on to claim:
- that UL's Motion to Dismiss wrongly asserts things that Ryan did not
assert in his pleading, and that, therefore, UL's motion materials go
beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss;
- that Ryan's claims regarding First Amendment rights have yet to
accrue, so Ryan should be entitled to assert an unfounded cause
of action on this front;
- that Ryan's Complaint adequately asserts a claim to an exception
to the employment-at-will law of Indiana on the basis of public policy
exception;
- that Ryan's Complaint properly asserts a cause of action pursuant
to the private employees' whistleblower legislation; and
- alternatively, that if Ryan has not properly asserted any cause
of action, as alleged by UL, he should be granted leave to amend his
complaint to plead it properly.
Interestingly, Ryan virtually admits that he is on a fishing expedition,
and concedes that he has no facts to support his allegation that the
government acted to cause his discharge or that UL acted under colour
of law in discharging him.
[bolding mine]
UL has filed a Reply to Ryan's Response,
which can be found here.
UL’s Reply is, again, fairly self-explanatory and well pleaded. It says,
essentially, that Ryan's pleadings are still crap and that they still do
not make out any legally comprehensible or viable claims.
It starts thus:
I will keep watching PACER for additional filings. So far, I see nothing to
indicate when the Motion to Dismiss will be argued in court, but I will keep
my eyes open for that.
For ease of reference, the original 'wrongful termination' thread is here.
the documents filed in court in the litigation between Kevin
Ryan and Underwriters Laboratories. There was an earlier
thread on this, at which time only Ryan's Complaint and UL's
Motion to Dismiss were posted since, at that time, Ryan had
not yet responded to UL's Motion to Dismiss.
Ryan has since filed a response to UL's motion, and UL has
filed its Reply to Ryan's Response, so this new thread is to
consolidate the documents and discussion in one place.
Many thanks to ~enigma~ for hosting the pdf documents
for your reading pleasure.
Enjoy
Ryan's initial complaint, which can be found here is not well
drafted and does not state very clearly the basis for the claims
it makes, but essentially it says that:
- in 2003, Ryan told people at UL about the usual tinhat conspiracy
theories;
- UL did not act upon his woo in the manner that Ryan wanted them to;
- so Ryan wrote to NIST to repeat the tinhat conspiracy theories,
and to accuse NIST of doing a crappy job in its investigation and
report, to accuse NIST of failing to "identify the truth about what
really happened", and suggesting that "criminal elements within the
U.S. government" may have planted explosives in the buildings, etc.;
- Ryan admits that he sent the letter from UL, using UL email address,
using his UL title, but says that he was stating his own opinion,
not UL's, and says that UL allowed him to use UL email for personal
email, and that the email program "automatically added the UL title
of Mr. Ryan to his email";
- Ryan also wrote to some tinhat troofer organization and they posted
his letter on the internet;
- UL fired Ryan as a result, saying that it was because he misrepresented
UL by writing as though it was UL's opinion and not his personal opinion;
- UL used this as a pretext to fire him "in retaliation for Mr. Ryan
exercising his rights and acting to fulfill his duties under the U.S.
constitution, the constitution of Indiana, and under federal and
state laws";
- UL wrongly terminated his employment because (by writing to NIST),
he exercised his right under the U.S constitution and the state
constitution to "petition his government for redress of grievances
and to reform his government", and because he was exercising his
first amendment rights in his letter to NIST and in his communications
with tinhat groups, etal.;
- UL wrongly terminated his employment because (by writing to NIST,
etc.), he was exercising his right to "report safety hazards and to
disclose material facts in a government investigatino of a (sic)
occupational and public safety related incident";
- UL wrongly terminated his employment because he was exercising
his right under federal, Indiana and NY laws, "to report potential
felonies and terrorist activity";
- UL wrongly terminated his employment because he was defending
the constitution and seeking to petition his government for redress
of grievances and seeking to "reform" the government "in the face
of actions by persons seeking to subvert" the gov't and alter the
democratic nature of our society;
Therefore, he seeks:
- back pay from November 2004
- $200,000 in front pay or, alternatively, reinstatement to his job;
- $unquantified for cost of relocation and job search;
- $unquantified lost value of medical insurance, retirement plan, benefits;
- $unquantified damages for emotional distress and damage to his reputation;
- $unquantified punitive damages.
UL brought a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, which can be found here.
UL's brief is self-explanatory and nicely set out, and essentially says that Ryan's
complaint discloses no viable claim and should, therefore, be dismissed.
In a nutshell, it says:
- that Ryan's complaint discloses no statutory basis for any of the
claims made by Ryan;
- that UL is not a government entity, (thus the first amendment and
related claims are not sustainable);
- that Ryan has not pleaded the requisite elements to make out any
of his claims;
- that UL was entitled to fire him for his sending the letter to NIST
containing many false or unsubstantiated assertions" and "baseless
assertions" and "incredible and unsupported claims" because he
misrepresented his opinions as that of the company;
- that Ryan was an "at will" employee; and
- that Ryan cannot, in the circumstances, bring his dismissal within
the narrow exception to "at will" termination, namely "public policy
exception."
As LossLeader noted in the original thread:
LossLeader said:
As noted above, Ryan has since filed a Response to UL's Motion to Dismiss,
which can be found here.
In a nutshell, it cuts and pastes liberally from Ryan’s initial Complaint,
does little to fix up the problems with the initial Complaint (despite the
UL motion materials being, virtually, a “how-to” manual for Ryan) and
goes on to claim:
- that UL's Motion to Dismiss wrongly asserts things that Ryan did not
assert in his pleading, and that, therefore, UL's motion materials go
beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss;
- that Ryan's claims regarding First Amendment rights have yet to
accrue, so Ryan should be entitled to assert an unfounded cause
of action on this front;
- that Ryan's Complaint adequately asserts a claim to an exception
to the employment-at-will law of Indiana on the basis of public policy
exception;
- that Ryan's Complaint properly asserts a cause of action pursuant
to the private employees' whistleblower legislation; and
- alternatively, that if Ryan has not properly asserted any cause
of action, as alleged by UL, he should be granted leave to amend his
complaint to plead it properly.
Interestingly, Ryan virtually admits that he is on a fishing expedition,
and concedes that he has no facts to support his allegation that the
government acted to cause his discharge or that UL acted under colour
of law in discharging him.
Ryan Response said:
[bolding mine]
UL has filed a Reply to Ryan's Response,
which can be found here.
UL’s Reply is, again, fairly self-explanatory and well pleaded. It says,
essentially, that Ryan's pleadings are still crap and that they still do
not make out any legally comprehensible or viable claims.
It starts thus:
UL Reply said:
UL Reply said:
UL Reply said:
I will keep watching PACER for additional filings. So far, I see nothing to
indicate when the Motion to Dismiss will be argued in court, but I will keep
my eyes open for that.
For ease of reference, the original 'wrongful termination' thread is here.
Last edited:
